HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33081 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. The proceedings for eviction in respect of Arazi Nos. 145ka, 145kha, 169ka, 169kha were initiated against the petitioner on the ground that these Arazi numbers are recorded as pond in the revenue record and the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the said khasra number. The petitioner filed an objection before the revenue authorities claiming that the pond in question was leased out to one Kamla Devi, mother of the petitioner for a period of 10 years. It was further stated in the objection that a civil suit No. 228 of 2011 was filed by Smt. Kamla Devi in which a temporary injunction has been granted in the year 2011 and Smt. Kamla Devi is continuing in pursuance of the said injunction order. It was further alleged that the application has already been moved for renewal of the said lease. After considering the objection filed by the petitioner, an eviction order was passed on 31.07.2023. Against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 67 (5) of the U.P. Revenue Code which has been dismissed on 16.11.2024. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the civil suit, the eviction proceedings have been drawn against the petitioner. He further contends that the pond in question could not be allotted as the application moved by her mother is pending consideration for extending the period of lease. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that if for sake of argument if it is accepted that the lease was granted for 10 years in the year 2010, the period has came to an end in the year 2020. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhanshu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh Vasudev .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Therefore, the petitioner nor his mother could continue over the pond in question. He further submits that no approval was granted to the resolution by the Land Management Committee which was passed in the year 2010 recommending lease to be granted in favour of the petitioner's mother. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that a resolution of Land Management Committee was passed on 26.09.2010 for granting lease to the mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Kamla Devi in respect of Arazis in question. The resolution was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer which was never approved. The said fact is fortified from the perusal of the temporary injunction order passed on application No. 6-C filed by Smt. Kamla Devi in Suit No. 228 of 2011 wherein a temporary injunction was granted on 10.08.2011. 6. Once no approval was granted to the mother of the petitioner in the year 2010, she had no right to continue over the pond in question. However, on the strength of the temporary injunction order she had continued till date. In the order dated 10.08.2011 it is clearly stated that the period of lease is of 10 years starting from 26.09.2010 to 26.08.2020. The period of lease as claimed by the petitioner has also came to an end. This case appears to be fraud on the legal system as there was being no approval to the resolution passed by the Land Management Committee. The mother of the petitioner and petitioner have continued over the pond in question for the last 15 years on the strength of a temporary injunction granted by the trial court in the year 2011. 7. This Court records displeasure over the way the temporary injunction order was granted noting the fact that approval was not granted in favour of Smt. Kamla Devi, the plaintiff of Suit No. 228 of 2011 and she had enjoyed the fisheries rights for the last 15 years simply on the basis of temporary injunction order being continuing in her favour. 8. The authorities have rightly initiated the proceedings for eviction and have passed the order of eviction which was confirmed in appeal. WRIC No. 33081 of 2025 2 9. This Court finds that the temporary injunction order dated 10.08.2011 cannot continue as it is in teeth of the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 as no approval was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer in regard to the fisheries rights over the pond in question and the petitioner and his mother is in unauthorized occupation of the land in question. The injunction order was granted on 10.08.2011 has lost its efficacy as the alleged period has came to an end on 26.08.2020. 10. In view of the said fact, the temporary injunction order dated 10.08.2011 is hereby vacated and the Suit No. 228 of 2011 appears to have become infructuous and stands dismissed as infructuous. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. The Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramabai Nagar forthwith for necessary follow up for keeping this order on record in Suit No. 228 of 2011. September 19, 2025 Jaswant WRIC No. 33081 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad